Easily spotted all four typos in your message. My default monospace font is Ubuntu Mono. I compared it to Adobe Source Code Pro, and Ubuntu Mono still looks better both in console and a text editor.
Same for me here. GoogleUpdater was so hard to uninstall on Vista. I was disgusted by the whole process. You need to remove it from startup, then from services, then open (quite obscure) Vista tasks, search for the updater task and remove it from there. Then you have to go to AppData directory in your user profile and clean it from there. Hell, the last time I felt so completely violated was when I installed RealPlayer back in 2000. I'm so happy it's dead now. Same is wished for Google Chrome.
I tried to raise the issue on Chrome help forums and got completely ignored. I will never install this browser again or anything from Google that uses the updater for that matter. And I'm discouraging all my friends from using it by describing my experience in all details.
The point of the WGA and Vista Activation is not to prevent every single end-user hack of Vista. No. It has never been. The point is to prevent organized criminal mass pirating. The kind of pirating when you as an unsuspecting client go to a store and buy a Vista disk that you think is geniune. You come home and install it on your PC, but it turns out that you bought a pirated version and you are unaware about it.
The point of WGA is to prevent some criminal pirate from selling you a hacked Windows. Without WGA and Activation you have no way of knowing whether the copy of Windows you paid for really came from Microsoft of from a Joe hacker's basement.
If you've been burned by buying a non-genuine version of Windows, Microsoft allows you to exchange your copy for a geniune version for free. And now Microsoft finally recognizes that the user is not at fault by removing the pointless "reduced functionality mode" of WGA.
You may have a very good point. However, there's likely something else at work here: the widespread belief in Russia (and a lot of the world) about American software's role in that big explosion of a Siberian pipeline in the summer of 1982.
Oh... 1982. Wasn't it the time when USSR obtained nearly all of its computer technology through the espionage? Even the article says so. I know for a fact that both CPU designs and operating systems code were stolen. There are some entertaining stories circulating the Russian internet that describe how the stolen OS binary code was localized so it could input and output cyrilic letters. Soviet engineers were especially happy when they obtained some version of BSD with the complete source code. Finally they could build it themselves!
However, what I meant by that was "gives helpful, user friendly errors in response to incorrect code"... which, as I understand it, most current C++ compilers are not advanced enough to do in conjunction with heavily templated code.
It strikes me you're just trying to guess. When there is nothing left to say, there is this. OK, the first guess failed. Let's redefine "up to Boost's requirements." Maybe the second guess will do. But this one's a miss too. Have you ever used Boost at all? There are only few areas where templates are used heavily: lambda, mpl, spirit. Do you know how many other libraries Boost has? In most of them template usage is moderate by modern C++ coding standards. Heck, Boost smart pointers are not even policy-based (read: less templates). Now, try something else.
The second 3) is the real issue, template meta-programming tend to divide the user community into library users, and library writers. As losing as the users stay users, everything is fine, but in case of a bug in the library, users are suddenly writers.
How is it different for any other library? Are you OK with a library only as long as it's bug free? So here's a surprise for you: every library has bugs. Boost is not the buggiest library I've ever used. I've probably seen more bugs in the VC++ standard library implementation than in Boost. Does it mean I shouldn't use STL based on your premise?
It's actually a problem for people who are required to use boost in conjunction with a compiler that isn't quite up to boost's requirements (i.e, most of the compilers out there).
Most of the compilers? It'd be great if you were more specific. In fact most of the compilers are very well supported by Boost. See the following page with the Boost test run for the 1.33.0 release:
http://engineering.meta-comm.com/boost-regressio n/1_33_0/developer/summary.html
Compilers/platforms that pass the overwhelming majority of tests include:
cw- 9_5- darwin
gcc- 3_3- darwin
gcc- 3.2.3- linux
gcc- 3.3.6- linux
gcc- 3.4.4- linux
gcc- 4.0.0- linux
gcc- 4.0.1- linux
intel- 8.1- linux
intel- 9.0- linux
gcc- 2.95.3- linux
gcc- 2.95.3- stlport- 4.6.2- linux
gcc- 3.4.3 tru64cxx65- 042
gcc- 3.3.6- osf1
gcc- 3.4.4- osf1 tru64cxx65- 042 tru64cxx71- 005
gcc- 3_4_3- sunos sunpro- 5_3- sunos mingw- 3_4_2
como- 4_3_3- vc7_1 mingw- 3_4_4
vc- 8_0
vc- 7_1
borland- 5_6_4
cw- 8_3
vc- 6_5
vc- 6_5- stlport
vc- 7_0
vc- 7_1
vc- 8_0
intel- win32- 9_0
cw- 9_4
intel- win32- 8_1
Actually the only few breaks are on new VC++ 8 and Intel 9 compilers. Older compilers are better supported.
This happened to me back in 2002. $1 to some charity. At that time I didn't know this scheme and I was left wondering what it meant. But nontheless it was duly reported, the credit card was immediately cancelled and I avoided more fraudulent transactions.
I love the new Remote Desktop in Vista. Beats the XP one hands down. Working remotely I couldn't stand the pain of not having the cleartype. In Vista, Cleartype and even Aero work over the remote desktop (you have to do Vista to Vista remote desktop to experience Aero). Now isn't that cool? My remote experience is so close to local that it's easy to forget that at times.
The only area where XP is still preferable to Vista is device drivers. RC1 is better than Beta 2 in that respect, but still not acceptable. In fact the only reason I'm not running Vista full time is drivers. I couldn't make any of my sound cards work (SB Audigy & Intel HD Audio). ATI TV Wonder doesn't work either. That pretty much leaves my home PC audioless and videoless under Vista.
Let me explain you how it works: the corporations... they created the DRM, and then... they sit there... in their corporation buildings... and they're all corporationy... and they make money...
That's the communists' mantra. Just give them a chance to implement communism one more time. All others failed. But this time it will be different. They promise. Don't you believe them?
Well, let's say this machine is 1000 times faster than Deep Blue. This will give it the power to see 3-4 half moves deeper. Is it enough to make any difference? Probably not so much in the middle game, but it can be noticeable in the endgame. Yet again Deep Blue has already beaten Kasparov. But we all know Kasparov didn't show his real power in that match.
Actually I think Mark was tipped too. It just seems to me that his blog came so out of the blue on this, that it's not a pure coincidence. Mark made it sound like he noticed some strange behavior with his system, investigated and found... hey, look, what I found! A more realistic scenario of events wound be that he gets to know these things, discusses it with proper people, insists that they come out clean, they refuse, he gets pissed off and writes a blog.
That changes almost nothing. Remember the "years" part of my post. It's not atypical for such a programming framework to save much, much more than a month in a 2 year project, and then there's maintenance after the fact.
Loosing even one month's paycheck out of two years is enough for me. Besides, read the licensing scheme carefully. If you want support you'll pay on the annual basis.
If you compare it to offerings from other companies, it won't sound that reasonable for you.
Sorry. If you think that $6600 is unreasonable, you are lacking in experience.
Hard to believe that a man with experience can say something ignorant like this.
> $6600 is a midline wage for a single coder for one month. Any decent sized project goes on for YEARS, and usually involves at least 2-3 coders. $6600 is a drop in the bucket...
You're forgetting that the licensing is per developer. If it's hard to understand, just imaging not receiving a paycheck for one month. Now go and rethink your post.
Slashdot Mirror
Easily spotted all four typos in your message. My default monospace font is Ubuntu Mono. I compared it to Adobe Source Code Pro, and Ubuntu Mono still looks better both in console and a text editor.
Same for me here. GoogleUpdater was so hard to uninstall on Vista. I was disgusted by the whole process. You need to remove it from startup, then from services, then open (quite obscure) Vista tasks, search for the updater task and remove it from there. Then you have to go to AppData directory in your user profile and clean it from there. Hell, the last time I felt so completely violated was when I installed RealPlayer back in 2000. I'm so happy it's dead now. Same is wished for Google Chrome.
I tried to raise the issue on Chrome help forums and got completely ignored. I will never install this browser again or anything from Google that uses the updater for that matter. And I'm discouraging all my friends from using it by describing my experience in all details.
And so do most of the commenters.
The point of the WGA and Vista Activation is not to prevent every single end-user hack of Vista. No. It has never been. The point is to prevent organized criminal mass pirating. The kind of pirating when you as an unsuspecting client go to a store and buy a Vista disk that you think is geniune. You come home and install it on your PC, but it turns out that you bought a pirated version and you are unaware about it.
The point of WGA is to prevent some criminal pirate from selling you a hacked Windows. Without WGA and Activation you have no way of knowing whether the copy of Windows you paid for really came from Microsoft of from a Joe hacker's basement.
If you've been burned by buying a non-genuine version of Windows, Microsoft allows you to exchange your copy for a geniune version for free. And now Microsoft finally recognizes that the user is not at fault by removing the pointless "reduced functionality mode" of WGA.
I heard that if you put the drive in a freezer it might work for some time allowing you to recover the data. I haven't tried it myself.
You may have a very good point. However, there's likely something else at work here: the widespread belief in Russia (and a lot of the world) about American software's role in that big explosion of a Siberian pipeline in the summer of 1982.
Oh... 1982. Wasn't it the time when USSR obtained nearly all of its computer technology through the espionage? Even the article says so. I know for a fact that both CPU designs and operating systems code were stolen. There are some entertaining stories circulating the Russian internet that describe how the stolen OS binary code was localized so it could input and output cyrilic letters. Soviet engineers were especially happy when they obtained some version of BSD with the complete source code. Finally they could build it themselves!
However, what I meant by that was "gives helpful, user friendly errors in response to incorrect code"... which, as I understand it, most current C++ compilers are not advanced enough to do in conjunction with heavily templated code.
It strikes me you're just trying to guess. When there is nothing left to say, there is this. OK, the first guess failed. Let's redefine "up to Boost's requirements." Maybe the second guess will do. But this one's a miss too. Have you ever used Boost at all? There are only few areas where templates are used heavily: lambda, mpl, spirit. Do you know how many other libraries Boost has? In most of them template usage is moderate by modern C++ coding standards. Heck, Boost smart pointers are not even policy-based (read: less templates). Now, try something else.
The second 3) is the real issue, template meta-programming tend to divide the user community into library users, and library writers. As losing as the users stay users, everything is fine, but in case of a bug in the library, users are suddenly writers.
How is it different for any other library? Are you OK with a library only as long as it's bug free? So here's a surprise for you: every library has bugs. Boost is not the buggiest library I've ever used. I've probably seen more bugs in the VC++ standard library implementation than in Boost. Does it mean I shouldn't use STL based on your premise?
It's actually a problem for people who are required to use boost in conjunction with a compiler that isn't quite up to boost's requirements (i.e, most of the compilers out there).
o n/1_33_0/developer/summary.html
Compilers/platforms that pass the overwhelming majority of tests include:
cw- 9_5- darwin
gcc- 3_3- darwin
gcc- 3.2.3- linux
gcc- 3.3.6- linux
gcc- 3.4.4- linux
gcc- 4.0.0- linux
gcc- 4.0.1- linux
intel- 8.1- linux
intel- 9.0- linux
gcc- 2.95.3- linux
gcc- 2.95.3- stlport- 4.6.2- linux
gcc- 3.4.3 tru64cxx65- 042
gcc- 3.3.6- osf1
gcc- 3.4.4- osf1 tru64cxx65- 042 tru64cxx71- 005
gcc- 3_4_3- sunos sunpro- 5_3- sunos mingw- 3_4_2
como- 4_3_3- vc7_1 mingw- 3_4_4
vc- 8_0
vc- 7_1
borland- 5_6_4
cw- 8_3
vc- 6_5
vc- 6_5- stlport
vc- 7_0
vc- 7_1
vc- 8_0
intel- win32- 9_0
cw- 9_4
intel- win32- 8_1
Most of the compilers? It'd be great if you were more specific. In fact most of the compilers are very well supported by Boost. See the following page with the Boost test run for the 1.33.0 release: http://engineering.meta-comm.com/boost-regressi
Actually the only few breaks are on new VC++ 8 and Intel 9 compilers. Older compilers are better supported.
This happened to me back in 2002. $1 to some charity. At that time I didn't know this scheme and I was left wondering what it meant. But nontheless it was duly reported, the credit card was immediately cancelled and I avoided more fraudulent transactions.
I love the new Remote Desktop in Vista. Beats the XP one hands down. Working remotely I couldn't stand the pain of not having the cleartype. In Vista, Cleartype and even Aero work over the remote desktop (you have to do Vista to Vista remote desktop to experience Aero). Now isn't that cool? My remote experience is so close to local that it's easy to forget that at times.
The only area where XP is still preferable to Vista is device drivers. RC1 is better than Beta 2 in that respect, but still not acceptable. In fact the only reason I'm not running Vista full time is drivers. I couldn't make any of my sound cards work (SB Audigy & Intel HD Audio). ATI TV Wonder doesn't work either. That pretty much leaves my home PC audioless and videoless under Vista.
Let me explain you how it works: the corporations ... they created the DRM, and then ... they sit there ... in their corporation buildings ... and they're all corporationy ... and they make money ...
That's the communists' mantra. Just give them a chance to implement communism one more time. All others failed. But this time it will be different. They promise. Don't you believe them?
Well, let's say this machine is 1000 times faster than Deep Blue. This will give it the power to see 3-4 half moves deeper. Is it enough to make any difference? Probably not so much in the middle game, but it can be noticeable in the endgame. Yet again Deep Blue has already beaten Kasparov. But we all know Kasparov didn't show his real power in that match.
Actually I think Mark was tipped too. It just seems to me that his blog came so out of the blue on this, that it's not a pure coincidence. Mark made it sound like he noticed some strange behavior with his system, investigated and found... hey, look, what I found! A more realistic scenario of events wound be that he gets to know these things, discusses it with proper people, insists that they come out clean, they refuse, he gets pissed off and writes a blog.
That changes almost nothing. Remember the "years" part of my post. It's not atypical for such a programming framework to save much, much more than a month in a 2 year project, and then there's maintenance after the fact.
Loosing even one month's paycheck out of two years is enough for me. Besides, read the licensing scheme carefully. If you want support you'll pay on the annual basis. If you compare it to offerings from other companies, it won't sound that reasonable for you.
Sorry. If you think that $6600 is unreasonable, you are lacking in experience.
Hard to believe that a man with experience can say something ignorant like this.
> $6600 is a midline wage for a single coder for one month. Any decent sized project goes on for YEARS, and usually involves at least 2-3 coders. $6600 is a drop in the bucket...
You're forgetting that the licensing is per developer. If it's hard to understand, just imaging not receiving a paycheck for one month. Now go and rethink your post.